{"title":"The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement","authors":"T. Kelly","doi":"10.1002/9781119420828.CH17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119420828.CH17","url":null,"abstract":"Looking back on it, it seems almost incredible that so many equally educated, equally sincere compatriots and contemporaries, all drawing from the same limited stock of evidence, should have reached so many totally different conclusions—and always with complete certainty.","PeriodicalId":378706,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Epistemology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116624894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Why We Don't Deserve Credit for Everything We Know","authors":"Jennifer Lackey","doi":"10.1002/9781119420828.ch13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119420828.ch13","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":378706,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Epistemology","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131918835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"No Exception for Belief","authors":"Susanna Rinard","doi":"10.1111/PHPR.12229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/PHPR.12229","url":null,"abstract":"This paper defends a principle I call Equal Treatment, according to which the rationality of a belief is determined in precisely the same way as the rationality of any other state. For example, if wearing a raincoat is rational just in case doing so maximizes expected value, then believing some proposition P is rational just in case doing so maximizes expected value. This contrasts with the popular view that the rationality of belief is determined by evidential support. It also contrasts with the common idea that in the case of belief, there are two different incommensurable senses of rationality, one of which is distinctively epistemic. I present considerations that favor Equal Treatment over these two alternatives, reply to objections, and criticize some arguments for Evidentialism. I also show how Equal Treatment opens the door to a distinctive kind of response to skepticism.","PeriodicalId":378706,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Epistemology","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123636204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Knowledge and Justification","authors":"E. Sosa","doi":"10.1002/9781119420828.ch15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119420828.ch15","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter offers a way out for the externalist virtue epistemologist, with implications for the perennial problematic of radical skepticism. Consisting of three parts, the chapter outlines some main components of the epistemology laid out in the earlier chapters while providing further historical context. The first part briefly reprises the account of knowledge as action using the notion of epistemic competence, then connects this with central ideas of Aristotle's ethics and Descartes' epistemology. This analysis then illuminates epistemic justification in part two and radical skepticism in part three. The chapter shows that only with understanding of how knowledge is constituted can scholars properly seek the place of epistemic justification in that constitution.","PeriodicalId":378706,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Epistemology","volume":"162 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116636208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A (Different) Virtue Epistemology","authors":"J. Greco","doi":"10.1111/J.1933-1592.2011.00567.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1933-1592.2011.00567.X","url":null,"abstract":"Section 1 articulates a genus-species claim: that knowledge is a kind of success from ability. Equivalently: In cases of knowledge, S’s success in believing the truth is attributable to S’s ability. That idea is then applied to questions about the nature and value of knowledge. Section 2 asks what it would take to turn the genus-species claim into a proper theory of knowledge; that is, into informative, necessary and sufficient conditions. That question is raised in the context of an important line of objection against even the genus-species claim; namely, that there is no way to understand the attribution relation so that it does all the work that it is supposed to do. Section 3 reviews several extant proposals for understanding the attribution relation, and argues that none of them are adequate for answering the objection. Section 4 proposes a different way of understanding the relation, and shows how the resulting view does resolve the objection. Section 5 completes the new account by proposing a way to understand intellectual abilities. Section 6 briefly addresses Barn Facade cases and lottery propositions. Section 7 briefly addresses a question about the scope of knowledge; in particular, it shows how the new view allows a neo-Moorean response to skepticism.","PeriodicalId":378706,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Epistemology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132084028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Cognitive Penetrability and Perceptual Justification","authors":"S. Siegel","doi":"10.1111/J.1468-0068.2010.00786.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-0068.2010.00786.X","url":null,"abstract":"It is sometimes said that in depression, everything looks grey.1 If this is true, then mood can influence the character of perceptual experience: depending only on whether a viewer is depressed or not, how a scene looks to that viewer can differ even if all other conditions stay the same. This would be an example of cognitive penetration of visual experience by another mental state. Here the influential cognitive state is a mood. Other putative examples of cognitive penetrability involve beliefs: to the reader of Russian, the sheet of Cyrillic script looks different than it looked to her before she could read it. When you know that bananas are yellow, this knowledge affects what color you see bananas to be (an achromatic banana will appear yellowish).2 Or suppose that to a vain performer, the faces in the audience ranged in their expression from neutral to pleased, but remarkably no one ever looked disapproving, while to an underconfident performer, the faces in the audience ranged in their expression from neutral to displeased, but remarkably no one ever looked approving. Potential cognitive penetrators thus include moods, beliefs, hypotheses, knowledge, desires, and traits. In some cases, cognitive penetration can be epistemically beneficial. If an x-ray looks different to a radiologist from the way it looks to someone lacking radiological expertise, then the radiologist gets more information about the world from her experience (such as whether there’s a tumor) than the non-expert does from looking at the same x-ray. If Iris Murdoch and John McDowell are correct in thinking that having the right sort of character lets you see more moral facts than someone lacking that character sees when faced with the same situation, then there too, your perceptual experience becomes epistemically better, thanks to its being penetrated by your character.3 In other cases, however, cognitive penetration seems to make experience epistemically worse. The challenge to perceptual justification posed by","PeriodicalId":378706,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Epistemology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130152701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Alief and Belief","authors":"T. Gendler","doi":"10.5840/JPHIL20081051025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHIL20081051025","url":null,"abstract":"I introduce and argue for the importance of a cognitive state that I call alief. Paradigmatic alief can be characterized as a mental state with associatively-linked content that is representational, affective and behavioral, and that is activated – consciously or unconsciously – by features of the subject’s internal or ambient environment. Alief is a more primitive state than either belief or imagination: it directly activates behavioral response patterns (as opposed to motivating in conjunction with desire or pretended desire.) I argue that alief explains a large number of otherwise perplexing phenomena and plays a far larger role in causing behavior than has typically been recognized by philosophers. I argue further that the notion can be invoked to explain both the effectiveness and the limitations of certain sorts of example-based reasoning, and that it lies at the core of habit-based views of ethics. O. Four Opening Examples In March 2007, 4000 feet above the floor of the Grand Canyon, a horseshoeshaped cantilevered glass walkway was opened to the public. Extending 70 feet from the Canyon’s rim, the Grand Canyon Skywalk soon drew hundreds of visitors each day, among them New York Times reporter Edward Rothstein, who filed the following dispatch: A visitor to these stark and imposing lands of the Hualapai Indians on the western rim of the Grand Canyon knows what sensation is being promised at the journey’s climax. After driving for a half-hour over bone-jolting dirt roads...you take a shuttle bus from the parking lot...You deposit all cameras at a security desk, slip on yellow surgical booties and stride out onto a horseshoe-shaped walkway with 1 I am grateful to the Yale faculty lunch group for comments on a very early draft of this paper, and to audiences at Princeton University (March 2007), the Central APA Chicago (April 2007), and the Mind & Language Pretense Conference at University College London (June 2007) for excellent questions, comments, objections and suggestions regarding the talk which served as its immediate predecessor. For more recent discussion and comments, I thank John Bargh, Paul Bloom, Carolyn Caine, Greg Currie, Andy Egan, Roald Nashi, Ted Sider, Jason Stanley, Zoltán Gendler Szabó and Jonathan Weinberg.","PeriodicalId":378706,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Epistemology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130503072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：